Rebuking Punjab and Haryana for failing to curb stubble-burning, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said their efforts were a “mere eyewash”. The top court’s criticism came even as the air quality in the National Capital Region (NCR) worsened.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine Masih stressed that stubble-burning is not just a legal violation but also a direct breach of citizens’ fundamental right to clean air under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“These are not merely breaches of the law,” the court emphasised. “The right to live with dignity in a pollution-free environment is guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21. It is time both the Union and state governments recognize this and act accordingly.”
Frustrated at lax enforcement, the bench summoned the chief secretaries of both states for an explanation. The court questioned the reluctance on the part of governments to prosecute offenders and criticised Punjab and Haryana for imposing only nominal fines on violators. “This is not policy enforcement—this is a license to pollute,” observed Justice Oka.
Punjab, represented by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, attempted to defend its actions by citing the prosecution of 44 offenders and the collection of Rs 11 lakh in fines from 417 violators. However, the court was unimpressed. “If Rs2,500 to Rs 5,000 fines are all you impose, what deterrent effect do you expect?” asked the bench, adding, “Why were 684 violators spared any penalty? Are small fires now exempt from your laws?”
The Haryana government also came under fire for reporting no prosecutions since the establishment of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in 2021. Officials claimed that the number of stubble-burning incidents had dropped to 655 this year from nearly 10,000 in previous years. However, the court was sceptical, hinting that the drop could reflect underreporting.
When the Haryana administration pointed out that Rs2 crore had been collected in fines, the court responded cynically: “Are these fines just a formality to later quash penalties on appeal?” The bench also expressed doubt over inconsistencies in enforcement, asking, “Is this selective enforcement part of some policy devised to favor certain farmers?”
The Supreme Court did not spare the Central government, criticising the ineffective implementation of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Act, 2021, and the weakening of Section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), which imposes penalties for violations. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati assured the bench that the enforcement mechanisms would be fully operationalized within ten days, but the court expressed frustration at the delays.
The court hinted that political considerations might be interfering with enforcement. “This is not a political issue—it’s about the implementation of statutory directions,” Justice Oka remarked, alluding to a previous hearing where it was suggested that political factors were hindering action.
The CAQM, described last week as a “toothless wonder” by the court for its inability to enforce its orders, came under scrutiny again. “What are the CAQM officials doing if not ensuring compliance?” the bench asked.
With winter approaching, Delhi’s air quality is already on the decline, signaling another season of hazardous pollution levels. The Delhi government recently activated Phase II of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) and imposed a ban on the sale and use of firecrackers to combat the impending smog.
Despite these measures, the court’s observations reflect the looming health crisis. Every year, pollution levels in Delhi and the NCR soar beyond measurable limits, triggering respiratory illnesses and hospitalizations. “The failure of enforcement could turn deadly,” the court warned.
The court made it clear that it expects immediate action from both Punjab and Haryana. “At least one prosecution should have happened if there was any serious intent to enforce the law,” the bench remarked, indicating that further inaction could result in stringent judicial measures.
With the worsening air quality and the state’s apparent reluctance to enforce anti-pollution laws, the bench concluded: “This is not just a legal issue but a fundamental rights issue, and we will intervene wherever necessary to protect the rights of citizens.”
